Who knew dogs could lead to so much litigation? In the latest installment of Dog Law, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court vacated the defendant’s conviction for violating the law relating to confinement and control of dogs. The defendant was charged with violating Section 502-A(a) of the Dog Law (relating to summary offense of harboring a dangerous dog), but the magistrate convicted him of violating Section 305(a)(1), believing it was a lesser included offense. The defendant filed a notice of appeal and a motion to quash in the Court of Common Pleas. The Common Pleas Court ruled that it did not have the authority to rule on the motion to quash. The defendant then stipulated that the evidence at the de novo trial would be sufficient to find him guilty of violating Section 305(a)(1), the same charge the lower court had found him guilty of. The defendant appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which vacated the conviction. The matter revolved around Rule 460 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which governs appeals from magisterial district courts to the Court of Common Pleas. Here, the Commonwealth Court ruled that the crime defendant was convicted of was not a lesser included of the crime he was initially charged with. As such, double jeopardy prohibited him from being tried in the de novo trial on the other charge.